Location: The distant figure that walks the treeline. The man standing in the field.

Posts: 4,152

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiscoLad

Well for starters this game sucks so I don't see how people can buy into it.

Why do you ask for people's opinions on the game and then say it sucks, as if that's a fact.
Assassin's Creed was okay, but part 2 was alot better.
They took everything that people disliked about the first and corrected it. The storyline is great, the environment if superb, and I even like the platforming.

I´ve played Creed 2 on the PC, and I had some trouble with the controls. When I had to run and climb to the roofs, I haven't manage to deal with the keyboard+mouse.
Dunno maybe it was bad config of the keys....Strange...I played the 1 just fine! More keys on 2?????

Dont get me wrong. The game is really cool (creed 2), but it´s just the controls I´m finding a bit hard to use on the gamplay. I have uninstalled the game, but I think will give a second chance and install it again.
I even bought the book : http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...aissan-001.jpg

For someone who's seen dozens of virtual iterations of Normandy's hedgerows or the neon lights of modern-day New York City, walking on (and even more often, above) the bustling streets in Jerusalem and other major cities in the Holy Land or Renaissance Italy is truly an experience. Even if they kind of forgot to add the actual game into the first one...

And yeah, while AC1 is lacking in a lot of departments, Part II amends technically everything it was lacking, and adds more. It's money well spent, at least on consoles. The copy protection* on PC version is horrid.

*Though there are ways around that... but this is no place for details.

I find FPS on a PC perfect. Mouse and arrow keys and death and destruction here we come!

For the record, I play technically all my games with mouse + KB. And enjoy it like that all the way.

But before things get ridiculous, I better clarify that any individual's choice of control methods is up to personal preference. One likes the pad, the second the keys, the third the mote. Not single right answer to "which one is the best".

Pretty much. I've only played the first Assassin's Creed, due to my intense interest in the Crusades. And while the repetitive, stupid quests (why would any self-respecting Hashishin blow his cover to kill 5 guards pushing around some guy in the middle of the city!?), Altair's lame unsubtle costume, and the various other oddities (Why was there a Templar waiting to fight me just then in this back alley in Jerusalem?) were detractions . . . .there has never been quite a gaming experience for me like seeing the vast city and impressive walls of Damascus for the first time, and then walking through the immense crowds of people in the Old Souk, with the calling out of criers and merchants sounding above the hum of the populace. The game is worth playing for that experience alone. I can't even play a game like Oblivion anymore because (in Oblivion's case) I go into the capital, and see like 5 people walking on the largely deserted street. Capital my ass!

(why would any self-respecting Hashishin blow his cover to kill 5 guards pushing around some guy in the middle of the city!?)

It's not like they'd even heard about CCTV or modern police procedure in the Holy Land... plus those were violent times. I had no trouble suspending my belief that even after slaughtering around ten guys full anonymity wasn't any further than the nearest haystack. It's not like Altair was the only guy in the city dressed in white robes (though I admit, it bugged me how one could impersonate a monk with a ton of blades strapped to ones back, at least it's actually possible to conceal all your weapons on Ezio's model).

And I actually stopped to save every traveler in danger the fighting engine wasn't half bad either... or okay, it got extremely repetitive after learning the counter ("hey guys, I've an idea... why don't we gang this guy all at once?" ... "what a stupid idea! we're the knights of the holy order(TM), that would just not be very... chivalrous!"). Part II ain't much better in this sense, though they did add a bit of tactical variety by actually not making the same weapon work on every guy. (The best way to get rid of that heavily-armored mook waving a huge sword is to go for the unarmed counter/disarm. Huh.)

Still, like the scenery, I enjoyed the swordplay immensely as well and found it very hard to get bored with the brutal quick-kill animations even when they, too, started to repeat themselves. As with the scenery, might have something to do with the fact that I've survived most of the cinematic firefights out there and seen a plenty of ragdolls when a guy gets blown up by a grenade.

It's not like they'd even heard about CCTV or modern police procedure in the Holy Land... plus those were violent times.

Just because the Crusades era was violent doesn't mean there wasn't the basics of law and order in a given city, or the proper reactions to an Assassin attack.

The actual Hashishin were feared because you never knew when they would strike. They actually used disguises, which is why they managed to weave their way into the immediate vicinity of their targets, despite the number of guards.

But on the other hand, in the game, we have a character who openly wears tons of weapons (as you said), but in addition seems to immediately be recognized as soon as he gets into a fight, with the guards yelling about their being an Assassin attack. Given this, no doubt the targets would change their schedule a bit, or at the very least double the guard to ensure some extra protection. But in this game, there's none of that. You can kill 50 guards and litter the streets with bodies, but Tamir will still go to that busy marketplace in Damascus. Yes, a couple targets somewhat "trap" you, but there's no consequences for your actions in the city outside of getting killed.

Just because the Crusades era was violent doesn't mean there wasn't the basics of law and order in a given city, or the proper reactions to an Assassin attack.

I didn't say it was an anarchy. Simply referring to the fact that while our desires to stab five or so guys to death in a public place in these modern times is kind of hindered by the fact it'd get our face in every news bulletin from here to the next town. In 12th century Jerusalem however, it might be a lot easier to vanish among the million or so other residents after what seems like a random act of kindness. Besides, if a bunch of guards get attacked by a guy in a white robe, how does that give them enough evidence to deduce that he must be there for the Templar Master or whoever?

It's flimsy at best, I know, but fleeing the scene and hitting a hay stack to evade pursuit is still miles more believeable than say, shooting a bunch of cops dead in a GTA game and then have them think "oh, okay, back to the office" five seconds after you hit the spray shop. Though any gamer who actual wishes to enjoy the game eventually learns to shut such leaps in logic out of his mind. Thanks to the setting, AC actually makes it easy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabeed

The actual Hashishin were feared because you never knew when they would strike. They actually used disguises, which is why they managed to weave their way into the immediate vicinity of their targets, despite the number of guards.

Isn't this what you're pretty much doing over the story missions? Perhaps excluding the disguises, but still.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabeed

But on the other hand, in the game, we have a character who openly wears tons of weapons (as you said), but in addition seems to immediately be recognized as soon as he gets into a fight, with the guards yelling about their being an Assassin attack. Given this, no doubt the targets would change their schedule a bit, or at the very least double the guard to ensure some extra protection. But in this game, there's none of that. You can kill 50 guards and litter the streets with bodies, but Tamir will still go to that busy marketplace in Damascus. Yes, a couple targets somewhat "trap" you, but there's no consequences for your actions in the city outside of getting killed.

The setting of AC actually amends this as well since you're not actually playing as Altair or Ezio per se, but as Desmond exploring his ancestors' memories. Which means that in between the key missions you're not in fact following a linear sequence, but simply traversing between points of hitting the next memory. So even if you decide to kill those fifty guards in free-roam mode, it's not what actually happened.

Besides, have you forgotten, while Tamir or those other early targets don't avoid the souk or close the hospital even if there is a guy in white pulling a murder spree in the city, later in the game you actually have to kill a guy who is truly paranoid and seeing assassins everywhere, wondering if his number is coming up next (which it is). So it's not like they completely avoid Altair gaining notoriety either.

Still, it's a game, and one that has you do tons of crazy stuff like those leaps of faith, any of which would if not kill you then at least break your back if you tried them in reality. The plot in itself has ancient conspiracies and ancestral memories. It never even tries to act like it falls on 'mundane' in the Sliding Scale of Realistic vs. Fantastic. (Yeah, that really is a great site.)

I didn't say it was an anarchy. Simply referring to the fact that while our desires to stab five or so guys to death in a public place in these modern times is kind of hindered by the fact it'd get our face in every news bulletin from here to the next town. In 12th century Jerusalem however, it might be a lot easier to vanish among the million or so other residents after what seems like a random act of kindness. Besides, if a bunch of guards get attacked by a guy in a white robe, how does that give them enough evidence to deduce that he must be there for the Templar Master or whoever?

It's flimsy at best, I know, but fleeing the scene and hitting a hay stack to evade pursuit is still miles more believeable than say, shooting a bunch of cops dead in a GTA game and then have them think "oh, okay, back to the office" five seconds after you hit the spray shop. Though any gamer who actual wishes to enjoy the game eventually learns to shut such leaps in logic out of his mind. Thanks to the setting, AC actually makes it easy.

The only reason AC makes it easy is because you don't actually have to do the silly missions where you rescue some pushed-around woman from a couple of guards. In any case, though, the Assassins are a recognizable faction in the game, and you are recognized as an Assassin (not an assassin/common murderer) when you piss off the guards in some way. While perhaps the target himself would not know of his impending doom, an Assassin sighting, historically, was a big deal, which is precisely why we have accounts of Assassin attacks, and know which attacks were done by Assassins and not just some disgruntled guy. These guys were feared, and it's not unreasonable to expect some kind of response to such a sighting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finn

Isn't this what you're pretty much doing over the story missions? Perhaps excluding the disguises, but still.

What I'm trying to say is that historically, they didn't kill anyone until they got to their target. Then they would commonly fight the guards to the death after stabbing said target. I realize for gameplay purposes it's better to fight some guards beforehand, a big part of being an assassin is stealth, and killing a bunch of guards in a marketplace for the awkwardly chivalric notion of saving some poor soul is off-mark. One could take the finale of the AC1, where you're just straight-on swordfighting a bunch of guys, as another example of the devs shoehorning in more "parryparryparryparryparry counter-attack parryparryparryparry counter-attack" fight scenes rather than some actual stealth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finn

The setting of AC actually amends this as well since you're not actually playing as Altair or Ezio per se, but as Desmond exploring his ancestors' memories. Which means that in between the key missions you're not in fact following a linear sequence, but simply traversing between points of hitting the next memory. So even if you decide to kill those fifty guards in free-roam mode, it's not what actually happened.

While its true that an undetermined amount of time occurs between your information-gathering memory and your actual assassination memory, you can still, in the assassination memory, kill a bunch of guards in the street en route and your target (and other guards) will be none the wiser. City watches were a bit more coherent than that. They weren't just armed bullies aimlessly roving the street. While means of communication were slower, the paradigm of "oh, it was violent then" just isn't an appropriate explanation in a city and market that has been functioning for several thousands of years like Damascus.

I think what I'm essentially getting at (besides that Altair's costume needed to hide those weapons better) is that Assassin's Creed could have used an alarm system a la Splinter Cell or the Thief series, so while killing an archer on a isolated roof or tower is fine, if you kill some guards in the middle of a crowded street, and if some other, nearby guards are warned, a bell would be rung or something and it would be harder to succeed at your task (guards would be doubled, or whatnot). I don't know if this concept is in AC2 or not, but it would be something for Eidos to really consider for the future.

Are these the assassins inspired by Hasan i Sabah, the Old Man of the Mountain? Those young men whom he convinced, under the influence of hashish, to undertake assassinations (in which they themselves were expected to die), in return for a place in Heaven?

The only reason AC makes it easy is because you don't actually have to do the silly missions where you rescue some pushed-around woman from a couple of guards. In any case, though, the Assassins are a recognizable faction in the game, and you are recognized as an Assassin (not an assassin/common murderer) when you piss off the guards in some way. While perhaps the target himself would not know of his impending doom, an Assassin sighting, historically, was a big deal, which is precisely why we have accounts of Assassin attacks, and know which attacks were done by Assassins and not just some disgruntled guy. These guys were feared, and it's not unreasonable to expect some kind of response to such a sighting.

What I'm trying to say is that historically, they didn't kill anyone until they got to their target. Then they would commonly fight the guards to the death after stabbing said target. I realize for gameplay purposes it's better to fight some guards beforehand, a big part of being an assassin is stealth, and killing a bunch of guards in a marketplace for the awkwardly chivalric notion of saving some poor soul is off-mark. One could take the finale of the AC1, where you're just straight-on swordfighting a bunch of guys, as another example of the devs shoehorning in more "parryparryparryparryparry counter-attack parryparryparryparry counter-attack" fight scenes rather than some actual stealth.

I agree with these two points. The game certainly should be better in these (and many other) areas, and I think I went in length also to call it flawed goods. And while the game could be historically more accurate (it sports even some anachronisms with the cityscapes, for example the Great Mosque of Jerusalem or the main cathedral in Acre were not finished by the time game takes place), I, as a gamer, still tend to treat these things as Acceptable Breaks from Realism (yes, you can find an article on that too in... you-know-where) especially since the game holds so much other fantastical stuff.

And even if you stop to help a random beggar unlucky enough to get caught, I can personally still suspend my disbelief while knowing that in reality, perhaps this pile of bodies here would kind of hinder a future stage of my operation, but as I said... it's still a game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabeed

While its true that an undetermined amount of time occurs between your information-gathering memory and your actual assassination memory, you can still, in the assassination memory, kill a bunch of guards in the street en route and your target (and other guards) will be none the wiser. City watches were a bit more coherent than that. They weren't just armed bullies aimlessly roving the street. While means of communication were slower, the paradigm of "oh, it was violent then" just isn't an appropriate explanation in a city and market that has been functioning for several thousands of years like Damascus.

Actually, any time you spend traversing the city is considered as Desmond's iteration of what happened to Altair/Ezio. Yes, even the times when you leave the Bureau after receiving the feather and head for the mission location is considered this. You're only "in synch" with your ancestor when the actual assassination memory starts (read: cutscene kicks in). Now when I think of it, the first game might have been a little vague with that. The second makes this clear, it's actually stated out loud. Your controllers outside the Animus can and will actually speak to you (or Desmond) as long as you're outside an actual mission/memory. And those main missions, in both games, are usually built in a way that encourages you to be stealthy and assassin-like 'til you get to your target. Sure, it also allows you to enter a huge swordfight with the target, all guards and their uncles involved, but it's simply the choice given to you as a gamer.

Of course, this whole concept can be seen as a justification and Lampshade Hanging (trope it) for these very game mechanics that are being griped about. Desmond actually quips in one secquence in the second game that he appreciates the subtitle option they added to the updated Animus (the first game didn't have any).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabeed

I don't know if this concept is in AC2 or not, but it would be something for Eidos to really consider for the future.

It's not, and I doubt Eidos could do very little for it, since the series developer is Ubisoft.

And heh... who said we couldn't get into a lengthy debate about games without a dedicated video game section?